Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1-11 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 9/16/24 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection is provided as independent claim 1, and 11 are allowable over the prior art. Claim 1, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea as discussed below.
Claim 1-11 are allowable once the 35 U.S.C 101 abstract idea rejection is overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more as fully discussed below.
Regarding Independent claim 1, and 11:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 1 is drawn to an evaluation apparatus, and claim 11 is drawn to an evaluation method. And hence falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Independent claim 1, 11 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, and 11 recites claim limitation of “and the fraction defective calculator calculates a foreign-object-factored fraction defective indicating a risk that a foreign object from the foreign object source adheres to the surface of interest due to the task motion, based on the gravity information, the assembly order information, the task motion information and the relative position information” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept OR a mathematical concept. A human can mentally perform a simple math calculation using pen and paper.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) OR an abstract idea processed by a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Hence claim 1, and 11 are the judicial exceptions that are no more than an abstract idea processed by mental concept and a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 1, and 11 recites additional limitation of “ acquires a gravity information indicating a gravity direction, acquires an assembly order information indicating an order of motion and assembly performed to each of the plurality of parts for each step included in the assembly operation (hereinafter, referred to as an assembling step), acquires a task motion information indicating a task motion performed by an operator in the assembling step, acquires a surface-of-interest information indicating a surface of interest in each of the plurality of parts, and acquires a relative position information indicating a positional relation between a foreign object source and the part in the assembling step” The functions of acquires different data are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data receiving and outputting are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1, and 11 further recite additional limitation of “the evaluation apparatus comprising: a data collector; and a fraction defective calculator” are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The filed specification disclose that “The configuration of the evaluation apparatus 1 may be implemented by hardware or may be implemented by information processing resources provided by cloud services” (Para. [0059] of Pub. 2026/0178159). Hence the disclosed calculator of the evaluation apparatus includes generic computer component.
Step 2B: No
The additional functions that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data storing, collecting, receiving, transmitting, outputting, or displaying (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) or (iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015))).
As such, claim 1, and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10:
Step 1: Yes
Claim 2-10 are drawn to evaluation apparatus, which is falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes
Dependent claim 2-10 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites claim limitation of “wherein the task motion information indicates the positional relation in the assembling step, and is a time series data divided by a predetermined time length”;
Claim 5 recites limitation of “wherein the fraction defective calculator calculates the foreign-object-factored fraction defective for each surface of interest based on the fraction defective index”;
Claim 6 recites limitation of “wherein the fraction defective calculator determines whether the positional relation is a predetermined positional relation or another positional relation other than the predetermined positional relation”;
Claim 7 recites limitation of “wherein in the determination of the predetermined positional relation, ray tracing is used to determine whether a straight line extending perpendicularly from the surface of interest of the part collides with the foreign object source.”;
Claim 8 recites claim limitation of “wherein the fraction defective calculator sums up or combines by multiplication foreign-object-factored fraction defectives of respective surfaces of interest in a same assembling step”;
Claim 9 recites limitation of “wherein the fraction defective calculator sums up or combines by multiplication foreign-object-factored fraction defectives of respective surfaces of interest in the assembly operation for a same surface of interest” that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept or a mathematical concept. A human can mentally perform the claimed limitation as discussed above.
Thus, these claimed functions are the judicial exceptions that are no more than a mental abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) OR an abstract idea processed by a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No
Claim 4 recites additional limitation of “wherein the data collector extracts the cleaning surface based on a dimension data of the processing apparatus in a state of being assembled and a cleaning surface determination condition that is a condition for determining the cleaning surface.”;
Claim 10 recites additional limitation of “the fraction defective calculator extracts an assembling step to be improved from assembling steps included in the assembly order information and assigns a priority to the assembling step”;
The functions of extracting, providing, transmitting and displaying are forms of insignificant input or output solution activities (i.e., extra solution), such that data receiving and outputting are necessary for the use of the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5-6, and 8-10 recites “the fraction defective calculator”, and claim 5 includes “a database”, which are considered as do not integrate into practical application and are recited at a high level of generality such that thy amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: No
The additional functions that are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional element to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data storing, collecting, receiving, transmitting, outputting, or displaying (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (i: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) or (iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015))).
As such, dependent claim 2-10 are not patent eligible.
Pertain cited prior art
Suzuki (Pat: 6526326) disclose a method and a system for evaluating qualities of articles such as electric/electronic apparatuses for home use, products for office-automation (OA) and the like which are manufactured by assembling constituent parts. More particularly, the present invention is concerned with a fraction defective estimating method for estimating likelihood of occurrence of failure in the works involved in assembling an article, a system for carrying out the fraction defective estimating method and a storage medium storing therein data, information and program for executing the method (Col. 1, Ln. 12-22).
Yoshimura (Pub: 2014/0288864) disclose a method of calculating an assembly time that calculates a product assembly time by a simulation, the method including: acquiring animation data for displaying steps of assembling a product on a display with an animation; detecting change in a viewpoint of an animation from the acquired animation data; and calculating an estimate of an assembly time of the product based on the detected change in the viewpoint of the animation (Para. [0005]).
Yamamoto (Pub: 2005/0071029) disclose a technique for evaluating products manufactured by assembling a plurality of components, such as home electronic appliances, information devices and manufacturing apparatuses, and the manufacturing process of the products, and supporting the design. In particular, the present invention relates to a method for previously evaluating the influence exerted on a product by a detective at the time of assembly, and design support based on a result of the evaluation (Para. [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights